Argument: Reasoning: - Reasoning: - Reasoning: - Evidence: - Evidence: - Evidence: -

Advanced Student

Congress

Tips, Tricks, and Tools to Excel in Final rounds at Competitive

Student Congress Tournaments

VHSL State Debate Scoring

Formula To advance to the super session at the

VHSL State Debate tournament the speaker must be in (roughly) the top half of their chamber. Chamber scoring is determined using the following formula:

Highest Speech Score + Second Highest Speech Score + Parliamentarian Score = Preliminary Total

VHSL State Debate Scoring

Formula To determine final placement, the following

formula is used following the super session: Preliminary Total + Speech Score from Judge 1 + Speech Score from Judge 2 + Speech Score from Judge 3 + Super Session Parliamentarian Score = Total Tournament Score

Super Session Speech is Key!

As a result of this formula, the final round speech is worth up to 300 points out of a possible 700 points contributing to final placement.

Without a doubt the most important item that must be mastered to ensure high placement for advanced speakers is the super session speech.

Last year the AA winner won on a tie-break based on the super session speech score and the AAA winner won by 2 points thanks to a higher super session speech score (was 6 points back going into the super session).

Tips for Improving the Super Session

Speech To maximize every potential point available,

the speaker needs to consider the 5 areas judges are asked to assess when hearing a speech: Delivery Originality of Thought Organization and Unity of Speech Evidence and Logical Basis for

Statements Overall Impact and Impression

Lets go over some tips to improve each area

Delivery The assumption is that if your competitor is

an “advanced” competitor, the they are most likely already masters of speech delivery.

As a quick mention, the speaker should maintain a professional, poised, and purposeful tone. Most importantly they should consistently speak as though their ideas are absolutely critical to the lives of the judges (sense of urgency not stressed out).

Originality of Thought

Does the speech advance debate or rehash old thoughts?

Consider the continuum below:

Presenting New Arguments Refuting Opposing Arguments

Where do you think the best speeches fall?


Presenting New Arguments Refuting Opposing Arguments

Use New Arguments as a Way to Refute Existing Ones

This is best accomplished by using your ideas to show the flaws of the opposition while providing new solutions to the issue at hand.


This blend is accomplished using 4 simple steps: (1) Re-state the argument made by the opposition

“The affirmative / negative argue that…”

(2) Show the flaws of their argument “However, this is problematic because…”

(3) Present your original idea on the issue “Instead we must consider the fact that…”

(4) Emphasize the importance of your new position “This is the most important item we must consider in

this debate because…”


If you can weave in a refutation of your opponents arguments into each original idea that you present, you will succeed in both advancing debate and bringing resolution to existing arguments presented by earlier speakers.

Organization and Unity of Speech

All speeches must revolve around one central stance taken by the speaker: should the resolution be affirmed or negated.

To extend this central stance, the speaker should connect it to a larger value assumption. An example of this is seen in the following: “Senators I stand before you today because we must

negate this resolution as it will serve as a detriment to our already struggling economy”

Now the central theme of the speech is both a negation of the legislation, as well as an analysis of how the legislation will impact one specific facet of our lives.

Organization and Unity

To organize a speech in a unified fashion, the speaker can use the following format to high levels of success: A.R.E. x 3

Argument Reasoning Evidence

These three items should serve as the organization structure for each point in a speech. This should be used 3 times as each speech has 3 points.

ARE Speech Handout

Aff or Neg Central Theme of Speech:

_________________

Argument: Argument: Argument:

Reasoning:

-

-

-

-

Reasoning:

-

-

-

-

Reasoning:

-

-

-

-

Evidence:

-

-

Evidence:

-

-

Evidence:

-

-

Evidence and Logical Basis for

Statements Following the ARE format will help in the use of

logic as the reasoning portion of each point will support the statements of the speaker.

To maximize points in this category, speakers should Strive for 5

Strive for 5 facts, details, or examples in each area of analysis, with 2 of these consisting of citations. (15 total facts, details, or examples, with 6 total citations)


StatementsFacts Details Exampl

es-Statistics related to topic

-Relevant dates / events in the history of the issue

-Background information coming from expert sources

-Existing precedent relating to the legislation

-Names of key people / laws involved in the issue

-Cases demonstrating the impacts you discuss in your speech


Statements Tools used to find the best citations possible

will be discussed shortly.

Overall Impact and Impression

Much of this ties directly into speaking style, but it frequently depends on the way the speaker ends their speech and the quality of their sources.

Judges are apt to be swayed by decisive finishes to speeches and the mentions of lofty sounding sources.

Don’t skimp on the finish! To make the most of your final round speech, make sure your conclusion consistently ties into your position to reinforce why your side should be supported. End with a resoundingly authoritative statement.

Tricks for the Super Session

(1) Know the P.O. It is usually fairly obvious based on either

reputation or observation throughout the duration of the tournament who will be the PO in the super session.

You may only be able to narrow it down to a possible 2, but the more you can narrow it down the greater your advantage in the super session.

Knowing ahead of time (though it will be just a hunch) the PO’s style of leadership will give you a decisive advantage.


(1) Know the P.O. Examples:

You can see how they tend to call for the next speaker, and you can be sure to jump at the precise moment when the speaker is called.

You will also be prepared for their preferences, which if you follow these preferences will reduce the likelihood that you will be either called out or ignored by the P.O.


(2) Push for the Power Position on the Docket Many coaches / competitors would say that the best

position to place your legislation is first on the docket in the super session. This is not necessarily true.

The major pro is that you are guaranteed the first speech, but there are also several cons. First the judges are usually more critical when it comes to points at the start rather than finish of the super session (they get tired pretty quickly). Second EVERY competitor is out for blood after the first speech. Third you have no opportunity to speak to the desires of your audience if you are the first to speak.


(2) Push for the Power Position on the Docket Instead, try to push to get your legislation in the second spot

on the docket for the super session.

You might raise the point that the super session may not get to the second piece of legislation. This is potentially true, but if it does get to the second resolution or bill it will likely be toward the end of the session.

As a result you will be one of the few who get in 2 speeches, and will essentially get the last word in the session. Also you will have ample time to adapt your speech to the unique nature of the super session group.

If you are writing legislation, make sure your legislation is highly debatable


(3) Make Sure You Get In a Speech Prepare possible arguments before hand for

both sides of the legislation. General A.R.E. x 3 outlines will help, and then can be improved in session.

Judge based on the number of speakers standing whether you will best stand out as an affirmative or negative speaker.

Absolutely make sure you get in a speech

Tools for the Super Session

Conducting Online Research

“Going beyond Google!”- Very talented VHSL coach with a very impressive coaching resume


Do’s and Don’ts of Citations DO

Use quotations from experts in the field Analyze precedent based on historical

analysis Interpret projections developed through

in-depth study and research (by others) Don’t

Use a quote to make a general statement Use a statistic to share a well known fact Use the quote to make your point (it is

meant to be the support)


Use “Lofty Sounding Sources.” Suggested sources:

Periodicals Think Tanks Other Sources

-The Economist-The Financial Times- Foreign Affairs- Foreign Policy- Nation Specific Newspapers (Le Monde, Der Spiegel, Daily Yomiyuri, etc)

- Cato Institute-American Institute for Economic Research-American Institute on Politics and Society-Brookings Institution-Carnegie Endowment for International Peace-Center for Economic and Policy Research-Foreign Policy Research Institute, etc

- Historical and Economics related Non-Fiction “New Releases”

- University Research Studies on the Issue

- Existing laws, statutes, and court cases able to demonstrate precedent

Using Sources Well!

Periodicals: Periodicals are often cited merely as a form of

“name dropping” more than an actual analysis of the news.

Example: “This has become a major problem for the

United States. This issue was mentioned in the New York Times as one of the top five concerns for American citizens”

That citation does nothing to improve the speech, yet we hear this all the time in competition

Using Sources Well

In order to use a periodical well, it should provide “insider knowledge” not accessible to the casual reader of the news.

These sources should provide relevant analysis that substantiates your own point.

If you are going to “name drop” then do it by using a source to quote an expert with relevant information on the topic.

Citing Think Tanks Often the work of Think Tanks goes unnoticed

outside of academic / policy making circles.

Think Tanks can be among the best sources possible as they usually concentrate on one specific area of policy analysis or one line of thinking (Cato Institute – Libertarian)

To use a Think Tank as a source, make sure you begin by explaining what the Think Tank studies. Then proceed to use their in-depth analysis to build your arguments.

Citing Think Tanks Example

“According to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, an organization studying the root causes of conflict in several “hot spots” around the world, the situation in Sudan is particularly grim as a result of…”

You can usually find the mission of these organizations on their homepage.

Other Resources University studies are often extremely valuable

sources of information, though frequently they are a work in progress. A student must mention the source of the study and

why that institution is of particular repute

Using Supreme Court cases to explain precedents in domestic policy is tremendously beneficial to informing your analysis. Often these cases or existing laws / statutes can be used to provide detailed background information on almost any topic.

Argument: Reasoning: - Reasoning: - Reasoning: - Evidence: - Evidence: - Evidence: -

Documents

Transcript of Argument: Reasoning: - Reasoning: - Reasoning: - Evidence: - Evidence: - Evidence: -